My Thoughts Exactly

[Hearsay]

RE: The Iraq War. I couldn't get the link to this article, but I believe it was in The Wall Street Journal.

 

Senators-in-Chief

January 25, 2007; Page A18

To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq. What we are witnessing is a Federalist Papers illustration of criticism and micromanagement without responsibility.

 

Consider the resolution pushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday by Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, two men who would love to be President if only they could persuade enough voters to elect them. Both men voted for the Iraq War. But with that war proving to be more difficult than they thought, they now want to put themselves on record as opposing any further attempts to win it.

 

Their resolution -- which passed 12-9 -- calls for Iraqis to "reach a political settlement" leading to "reconciliation," as if anyone disagrees with that necessity. But then it declares that the way to accomplish this is to wash American hands of the Iraq effort, proposing that U.S. forces retreat to protect the borders and hunt terrorists. The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will miraculously conclude that they have must settle their differences. A kind of reverse field of dreams: If we don't come, they will build it.

 

The irony is that this is not all that far from the "light footprint" strategy that the Bush Administration was following last year and which these same Senators called a failure. It is precisely the inability to provide security in Baghdad that has led to greater sectarian violence, especially among Shiites victimized by Sunni car bombs. The purpose of the new Bush counterinsurgency strategy is to provide more security to the population in the hopes of making a political settlement easier.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009572

[Trinity alum]

A few random thoughts.

 

The resolution does show that the country is divided. Guess what, the country is divided. Pretending that we aren't won't change that.

 

Is it constitutional? Of course it is constitutional to pass a NONBINDING resolution. If the congress tried to pass a BINDING resolution, that would be unconstitutional.

 

The power of the purse. Congress does have the authority to to cut off the funds, if they choose to use it. It would not be a good use of their power.

 

The problem is that the congress and a great number of Americans no longer have faith in the ability of this administration to manage the war. The administration has provided ample evidence that it is incapable. Does the incompetance of the administration provide comfort to the enemy? Yes it does, but it is the incompetance that provides the comfort, not someone that points it out.

[Frances Bavier]

We constantly hear about the leftist media. The WSJ is one of the pluperfect examples of the right wing media. Not a problem with that (I read the WSJ daily), but let's recognize it for what it is. At this point, the editorial pages of the WSJ look very much like the National Review (the Bible of conservativism in America).

 

Let's take a look at some of the points made by the author of the article in question:

... But then it (Congress) declares that the way to accomplish this is to wash American hands of the Iraq effort, proposing that U.S. forces retreat to protect the borders and hunt terrorists. The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will miraculously conclude that they have must settle their differences. A kind of reverse field of dreams: If we don't come, they will build it. [/Quote] Well, at this point, it is pretty obvious that the Iraqis are not going to build it themselves, as long as they can rely on us to pour money into their country, along with a few thousand American lives. The author appears to believe that our continued presence will somehow magically convince them to take responsibility for their own future.

 

 

The irony is that this is not all that far from the "light footprint" strategy that the Bush Administration was following last year and which these same Senators called a failure. [/Quote] Conveniently ignoring the fact that the "light footprint" has our people directly in the middle of a civil war, rather than on the perimeter, to stop the influx of more combatants.

 

 

It is precisely the inability to provide security in Baghdad that has led to greater sectarian violence, especially among Shiites victimized by Sunni car bombs. The purpose of the new Bush counterinsurgency strategy is to provide more security to the population in the hopes of making a political settlement easier. [/Quote] The people of America understand what the "hope" is with the "new" plan. The reality is, we DO understand it, it is NOT new (it is simply more of the same), and we reject it. In America, we have that right, and we are exercising it.

 

 

But then such analysis probably takes this resolution more seriously than most of the Senators do. If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they'd attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort. But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens next. [/Quote] I agree with this part of the article. The congressmen should have the courage of their convictions, and they should be held accountable for whatever positions they take.

 

 

By passing "non-binding resolutions," they can assail Mr. Bush and put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.[/Quote] WHOA! Wait a minute. The author writes this article, to bemoan the fact that Congress is meddling with the execution of the war, and in this single statement, is crying the blues because Bush will be forced to shoulder the burden of success or failure. Which is it? This war is Bush's - and he should reap all the credit for it's outcome. Regardless of how much he will try to distance himself from it in the future (just as all the members of Congress are currently trying to do).

 

 

This is not to say that the resolution won't have harmful consequences, at home and abroad. At home, it further undermines public support for the Iraq effort. [/Quote] Balderdash. The 24% of the population that still approve of the way Bush is handling the war are not going to change their minds regardless of further actions in Iraq. The rest have already seen the light.

 

 

All of this also applies to the many Congressional efforts to set "benchmarks" or otherwise micromanage the battlefield. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is "cursed with the responsibility gene" that makes her unwilling to cut off funds, but instead she proposes to set a cap on U.S. troops in the theater. So while General Petraeus says he needs more troops to fulfill his mission, General Clinton says he doesn't. Which battlefield commander do you trust?[/Quote] Why can't I trust the first group of military commanders that had to be replaced when THEY told the truth as they saw it, telling Bush that sending more troops was meaningless to the outcome of the war? It is no secret that Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney have consistently replaced Generals that did not tell them what they wanted to hear. Bush has, effectively, sorted through his military leaders, eliminating dissenting opinion. That is exactly why this administration is out of touch with what the majority of our population wants.

 

 

House Republicans are little better. They blame Mr. Bush and Iraq for their loss of Congress, rather than their own ethics, earmarks and other failures. So looking ahead to 2008 they now want to distance themselves from the war they voted for, albeit also without actually having to vote against it. Thus their political brainstorm is to demand monthly "benchmarks for success" that the Bush Administration and Iraqis will have to meet.[/Quote] The party that a Congressman is affiliated with is immaterial. These (Republican) congressmen are doing what should have been done all along - they are holding Bush's feet to the fire by setting goals, as opposed to giving him carte blanche to do as he will. That total lack of oversight by the previous Congress is why we are in the morass that currently exists.

 

 

There is a long and unsettled debate over whether Congress can decide to defund specific military operations once it has created a standing Army. We lean toward those who believe it cannot, but the Founders surely didn't imagine that Congress could start dictating when and where the 101st Airborne could be deployed once a war is under way.[/Quote] I realize that the use of hyperbole looks good on paper, but I would ask the author to provide an example of Congress micromanaging the war to this degree.

 

 

Mr. Bush was conciliatory and respectful in his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, asking Congress to give his new Iraq strategy a chance. In a better world, the Members would do so. But if they insist on seeking political cover by trying to operate as a committee of 535 Commanders-in-Chief, Mr. Bush will have to start reminding Congress who really has the job.

I think that the last 3 years of watching Bush completely mangle the war in Iraq is why his approval rating stands at 24%. Apparently, the author of the article is incapable of understanding WHY the President's approval rating in Iraq has sagged to the point that it has.

 

 

Frances

[Booge]

America's lack of will to win in Iraq comforts the enemy much more than any perceived "incompetence."

[Frances Bavier]

A few random thoughts.

 

The resolution does show that the country is divided. Guess what, the country is divided. Pretending that we aren't won't change that.

 

Is it constitutional? Of course it is constitutional to pass a NONBINDING resolution. If the congress tried to pass a BINDING resolution, that would be unconstitutional.

 

The power of the purse. Congress does have the authority to to cut off the funds, if they choose to use it. It would not be a good use of their power.

 

The problem is that the congress and a great number of Americans no longer have faith in the ability of this administration to manage the war. The administration has provided ample evidence that it is incapable. Does the incompetance of the administration provide comfort to the enemy? Yes it does, but it is the incompetance that provides the comfort, not someone that points it out.

 

Excellent points, Trinity Alum.

 

 

Frances

[Habib]

We constantly hear about the leftist media. The WSJ is one of the pluperfect examples of the right wing media. Not a problem with that (I read the WSJ daily), but let's recognize it for what it is. At this point, the editorial pages of the WSJ look very much like the National Review (the Bible of conservativism in America).

 

This is irrelevant but I've read somewhere (I know that sounds bad) that the WSJ was one of the more liberal papers as far as news goes. The editorial page, of course, isn't.

[Ram]

Did anyone watch Glenn Beck yesterday?

 

To make a longer story long, he was going over promises made during State of the Union Addresses. He said that the only promise ever kept by a President, that was made during a State of the Union Address, was made my Bill Clinton.

 

Clinton said that he knew that Iraq was working on nuclear weaponry, and the people should stand with him in insuring that this does not happen.

 

It took another President to make this happen, but the promise was kept.

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

 

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

[Ram]

What other Dems said about the war:

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 |

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

[Frances Bavier]

Those are all nice quotes, Ram.

 

I couldn't help but notice the dates on them. The vast majority were made based on the cherrypicked intelligence that was fed to Congress by the Bush administration. The rest predate that period.

 

Oddly, I didn't see any equivalent quotes from the Republicans that were also of the same mindset at that point in time. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, and not an intentional attempt to make it appear as though only the Democrats in Congress have changed their view of the war ...

 

 

Frances

[ladiesbballcoach]

Those are all nice quotes, Ram.

 

I couldn't help but notice the dates on them. The vast majority were made based on the cherrypicked intelligence that was fed to Congress by the Bush administration. The rest predate that period.

 

Oddly, I didn't see any equivalent quotes from the Republicans that were also of the same mindset at that point in time. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, and not an intentional attempt to make it appear as though only the Democrats in Congress have changed their view of the war ...

 

 

Frances

So your view is that the Democratic leadership can easily be duped and don't have the ability to realize when something being fed to them is not accurate?:sssh:

[Ram]

Those are all nice quotes, Ram.

 

I couldn't help but notice the dates on them. The vast majority were made based on the cherrypicked intelligence that was fed to Congress by the Bush administration. The rest predate that period.

 

Oddly, I didn't see any equivalent quotes from the Republicans that were also of the same mindset at that point in time. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, and not an intentional attempt to make it appear as though only the Democrats in Congress have changed their view of the war ...

 

 

Frances

 

My point is that the members of congress got the information from the same people the President did. I know your thinking,"from the Bush administration". Nope. The answer is: The United Nations. DING DING DING. We have a winner.

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

Many years.

[Frances Bavier]

So your view is that the Democratic leadership can easily be duped and don't have the ability to realize when something being fed to them is not accurate?:sssh:

That is my view of ALL those that serve in Congress, when they do not practice due diligence in reviewing material given to them. That applies to Democrats and Republicans - especially when the material given to them has been vetted by any member of this administration. :thumb:

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

My point is that the members of congress got the information from the same people the President did. I know your thinking,"from the Bush administration". Nope. The answer is: The United Nations. DING DING DING. We have a winner.

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

Many years.

 

Still unable to find a quote by a Republican that supported the war in 2002, and has since rethought his position? You would think that Google would provide a more comprehensive result ...

 

As for the source of the intelligence, I'm pretty sure that we use the CIA, FBI, NIA, and several other sources for our intelligence gathering. The very idea that we would lay faulty intelligence at the feet of the UN is ludicrous.

 

 

Frances

[Ram]

Still unable to find a quote by a Republican that supported the war in 2002, and has since rethought his position? You would think that Google would provide a more comprehensive result ...

 

As for the source of the intelligence, I'm pretty sure that we use the CIA, FBI, NIA, and several other sources for our intelligence gathering. The very idea that we would lay faulty intelligence at the feet of the UN is ludicrous.

 

 

Frances

 

What about the un inspectors. They were the ones that gave the information on WMD's. We as part of the un sent them, why would we not believe them? They were sent as a delegation of all members of the un. They were the eyes inside.

 

I am sure we did some leg work after Sadam threw the inspectors out. But that is not the same as having people in Iraq looking at the weapon sites.

I believe the ultimatum was that if Sadam let the inspectors back in, we (un members) would not invade.

 

You can't find any Rep quotes because Rep are perfect. Before you start, I am just kidding.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Jim Schue]

America's lack of will to win in Iraq comforts the enemy much more than any perceived "incompetence."

 

Actually, I would argue America's lack of understanding of how to win provides the most comfort.